Dismissed¶25

Shri Krishan Bhargava S/O Sh. Sundar Lal, v. Samit Sharma

Rajasthan HC21 Jan 2026CCP/260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur; contempt petition dismissed; no deliberate and wilful disobedience; PHED Rajasthan officials; pay fixation; entire payment made; Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj; Supreme Court order dated 20.02.2025; benefits for three years prior to filing of writ petition/original application; liberty to approach concerned authority/Administrative Tribunal/High Court; notices discharged; Anand Sharma, J.; CCP No.260/2024 in SWP No.6141/2014; decided 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative relief: contempt petition dismissed and notices discharged; petitioner left at liberty to approach the concerned authority/Court as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions. ¶25

Shri Krishan Bhargava S/O Sh. Sundar Lal, Vs Samit Sharma — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No affirmative relief: contempt petition dismissed and notices discharged; petitioner left at liberty to approach the concerned authority/Court as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/contemnors committed deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 16.08.2023 (compliance with which, including entire payment after due pay fixation, was asserted by respondents' counsel), so as to warrant the contempt petition. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

No case of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 16.08.2023 is made out; hence the present contempt petition is dismissed.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is specifically clear as to the course open to a person aggrieved by non-compliance of the directions given by the Apex Court.

¶24

Key takeaways

As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 20.02.2025, a person aggrieved by non-compliance of the Apex Court's directions shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authority at the first instance and, if required, the Administrative Tribunal/High Court as per law.ratio¶24
While dismissing the contempt petition, the petitioner is left at liberty to approach the concerned authority/Court as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt - compliance with writ order: S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.260/2024 arising in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6141/2014 (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur; Anand Sharma, J.; decided 21.01.2026). Respondents' counsel submitted that the order dated 16.08.2023 had been complied with and the entire payment made to the petitioner after due pay fixation. Petitioner's counsel contended that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj (Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023, decided 20.02.2025) - that benefits be given for a period of three years prior to the month in which the writ petition/original application was filed - had not been complied with. The Court observed that the Supreme Court's order dated 20.02.2025 is specifically clear that a person aggrieved by non-compliance of the Apex Court's directions shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authority at the first instance and, if required, the Administrative Tribunal/High Court as per law. Holding that no case of deliberate and wilful disobedience was made out, the Court dismissed the contempt petition, discharged the notices, and left the petitioner at liberty to pursue the remedy indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2758]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.260/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6141/2014

¶6

Shri Krishan Bhargava S/o Sh. Sundar Lal, aged about 69 Years, R/o 85/43, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Samit Sharma, Secretary, PHED, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Rakesh Luhadiya, Chief Engineer (Administration) PHED, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶11

Anil Kumar Sharma, The Superintending Engineer, PHED, City Circle, South, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

¶12

State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG with Mr. Arun Kumar, AGC on behalf of Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶16

Order

¶17

21/01/2026

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order dated 16.08.2023 has been complied with by the respondents/contemnors and the entire payment has been made to the petitioner after making due pay fixation.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes such contention and stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj (Miscellaneous

[2026:RJ-JP:2758]

[CCP-260/2024]

(2 of 2)

Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023) decided on 20.02.2025, has given directions that the benefits shall be given for a period of three years prior to the month in which writ petition/original application was filed by the concerned person. Such directions have not been complied with by the respondents.

¶24

In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is specifically clear that, in case, any person is aggrieved by noncompliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then in that case, he shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authority at the first instance and if required the Administrative Tribunal/High Court as per law.

¶25

In view of above, no case of deliberate and wilfull disobedience is made out. Hence, the present contempt petition, is hereby, dismissed.

¶26

Notices stand discharged.

¶27

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authority/Court as per directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶28

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶29

DAKSH/48

Shri Krishan Bhargava S/O Sh. Sundar Lal, v. Samit Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Krishan Bhargava S/O Sh. Sundar Lal, v. Samit Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetram S/O Sh. Rohitash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogendra Kumar Gupta Vs Raj.State Hotels Corporation L

Smt Shail Bhardwaj Vs State Education Educationors

Surendra Singh S/O Shri Saheb Singh, Vs Dr. Joga Ram

Arvind Choudhary S/O Late Shree Mohan Ram Ji, Vs Shri Tapesh Pawar

Kanwar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.